On May 23, 54 ag groups sent a letter to the Biden Administration about the ongoing court cases surrounding glyphosate labeling.
The ag groups are against the position of a May 10 brief, which was submitted by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar to the U.S. Supreme Court. In this brief, the solicitor general advised the Supreme Court against hearing a case regarding pesticide labels.
The letter claims: “The new position expressed by the Solicitor General is a stunning reversal from previous bipartisan administrative policy. The brief asserts federal law and regulations do not prevent states from imposing their own labeling requirements, even if those labels run counter to federal findings.”
The full letter can be read here.
Boiled down, what’s the story?
What’s at hand is if the state of California can require a cancer warning label for glyphosate.
The Supreme Court is currently deciding if it will review the Monsanto Company versus Edwin Hardeman decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hardeman claims Roundup caused his cancer and was awarded $25 million.
Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018, says there are legal arguments worthy of a high court review.
Responding to the Solicitor General’s decision to urge the Supreme Court not to hear the relevant case’s appeal, Bayer submitted a petition. Their petition was a writ of certiorari, which is a request for the Supreme Court to order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review.
You can read Bayer’s full petition here.
What does this mean for pesticides, specifically pesticide labeling?
It’s being argued if the federal pesticide registration and labeling requirements do not preclude states from imposing additional labeling requirements, and in this case, as the ag groups point out, even if those requirements run counter to federal findings.
They cite “thousands of studies, decades of robust scientific consensus and numerous global regulatory bodies — including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — agree the herbicide is not a carcinogen.”
The ag groups are of a position such labeling and regulations should be: durable, predictable, science-based and not fluctuate between administrations.
“By opening the door to an impractical patchwork of state pesticide labeling requirements, farmer and user access to these tools would be threatened,” say the ag groups.
On May 10, Bayer issued a statement of its own:
“The company continues to believe there are strong legal arguments to support Supreme Court review and reversal in Hardeman, as its petition and the many amicus briefs filed in support of the petition underscore. Indeed, the expert U.S. agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, has consistently found that glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely and are not carcinogenic. Therefore, a cancer warning would be false and misleading and would be preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
“The decision to accept or deny review rests with the Supreme Court, which will consider the views of the parties – including an additional brief to be filed by the company – as well as the brief from the Solicitor General. Regardless of the final outcome at the Supreme Court, the company is fully prepared to move forward with its five-point plan, manage litigation risks and bring closure to the Roundup litigation.”
